Bottom Line:
Of the 606 citations identified in the literature search, there were a total of 21 articles that met all selection criteria, reporting results for a total of 4,131 subjects.Themes identified in the studies included: the importance of patient perceptions of treatment efficacy and side effects; the influence of physician recommendations on patient decision-making; and the prioritization of concerns regarding treatment side effects among those men who prefer radiation therapy or active surveillance.The articles had an average PREFS score of 3.4 (standard deviation [SD] 1.0), which is similar to a recent study for breast cancer treatment preferences.

Affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: We performed a systematic review to evaluate evidence regarding factors that influence patient preferences for management options for localized prostate cancer.

Methods: We followed a prespecified search protocol (PROSPERO identifier CRD42014009173) to identify studies that evaluated patient preferences for prostate cancer management options for localized prostate cancer. We queried PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, and Econ-Lit databases. Two separate reviewers completed the article selection process and review, including coding of study characteristics. Study quality was scored according to the PREFS checklist, which consists of five criteria: Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance. Reviewers summarized the primary findings of each article included in the analysis.

Results: Of the 606 citations identified in the literature search, there were a total of 21 articles that met all selection criteria, reporting results for a total of 4,131 subjects. Themes identified in the studies included: the importance of patient perceptions of treatment efficacy and side effects; the influence of physician recommendations on patient decision-making; and the prioritization of concerns regarding treatment side effects among those men who prefer radiation therapy or active surveillance. The articles had an average PREFS score of 3.4 (standard deviation [SD] 1.0), which is similar to a recent study for breast cancer treatment preferences.

Conclusion: This systematic review of factors that influence patient preferences for prostate cancer management options identified a small, but high quality, group of articles that satisfied the selection criteria. The available evidence suggests that interventions aimed at informing patients regarding the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer management alternatives should include the influence of physician recommendations and family members' desires on patient decision-making.

Mentions:
A total of 606 titles were identified in the initial database searches (performed on April 2, 2014), and the study selection results are summarized in Figure 1. After excluding reports published prior to 1995 (n=17), duplicate titles (n=63), and reports published in languages other than English (n=32), there were 494 titles for title review (Figure 1). After title review to exclude irrelevant reports, there were 212 articles remaining for abstract review. Abstracts were then reviewed to identify 61 manuscripts for full manuscript review after study exclusions. An additional ten articles were added at this stage based upon the authors’ knowledge of a recent study not identified in the search,21 review of the references from a prior review article on the patient preferences for prostate cancer treatment,14 and review of all references of the articles selected for full manuscript review. Therefore, a total of 71 manuscripts were reviewed. After exclusions, there were a total of 21 articles included that met all study criteria, including three articles from among the ten that were added in at the stage of full manuscript review. These 21 articles comprised the analysis set (Figure 1), and represented a total of 4,131 subjects.

Mentions:
A total of 606 titles were identified in the initial database searches (performed on April 2, 2014), and the study selection results are summarized in Figure 1. After excluding reports published prior to 1995 (n=17), duplicate titles (n=63), and reports published in languages other than English (n=32), there were 494 titles for title review (Figure 1). After title review to exclude irrelevant reports, there were 212 articles remaining for abstract review. Abstracts were then reviewed to identify 61 manuscripts for full manuscript review after study exclusions. An additional ten articles were added at this stage based upon the authors’ knowledge of a recent study not identified in the search,21 review of the references from a prior review article on the patient preferences for prostate cancer treatment,14 and review of all references of the articles selected for full manuscript review. Therefore, a total of 71 manuscripts were reviewed. After exclusions, there were a total of 21 articles included that met all study criteria, including three articles from among the ten that were added in at the stage of full manuscript review. These 21 articles comprised the analysis set (Figure 1), and represented a total of 4,131 subjects.

Bottom Line:
Of the 606 citations identified in the literature search, there were a total of 21 articles that met all selection criteria, reporting results for a total of 4,131 subjects.Themes identified in the studies included: the importance of patient perceptions of treatment efficacy and side effects; the influence of physician recommendations on patient decision-making; and the prioritization of concerns regarding treatment side effects among those men who prefer radiation therapy or active surveillance.The articles had an average PREFS score of 3.4 (standard deviation [SD] 1.0), which is similar to a recent study for breast cancer treatment preferences.

Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: We performed a systematic review to evaluate evidence regarding factors that influence patient preferences for management options for localized prostate cancer.

Methods: We followed a prespecified search protocol (PROSPERO identifier CRD42014009173) to identify studies that evaluated patient preferences for prostate cancer management options for localized prostate cancer. We queried PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, and Econ-Lit databases. Two separate reviewers completed the article selection process and review, including coding of study characteristics. Study quality was scored according to the PREFS checklist, which consists of five criteria: Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance. Reviewers summarized the primary findings of each article included in the analysis.

Results: Of the 606 citations identified in the literature search, there were a total of 21 articles that met all selection criteria, reporting results for a total of 4,131 subjects. Themes identified in the studies included: the importance of patient perceptions of treatment efficacy and side effects; the influence of physician recommendations on patient decision-making; and the prioritization of concerns regarding treatment side effects among those men who prefer radiation therapy or active surveillance. The articles had an average PREFS score of 3.4 (standard deviation [SD] 1.0), which is similar to a recent study for breast cancer treatment preferences.

Conclusion: This systematic review of factors that influence patient preferences for prostate cancer management options identified a small, but high quality, group of articles that satisfied the selection criteria. The available evidence suggests that interventions aimed at informing patients regarding the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer management alternatives should include the influence of physician recommendations and family members' desires on patient decision-making.